Talk:Paramara dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

I've just done a quick Google search and there seem to be lots of potentially decent sources for this article, even if we limit ourselves to those from, say, the last 40 years or so. What I couldn't spot was a source that dealt solely with the subject - does anyone know of such a thing? - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you about the History sources which will enhance the information about King Bhoja . Ask frankly . I can share with you . HistoricalQuest (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoja, Dhara, and Paramaras[edit]

As you can see in the table below, or from the key references, the Paramaras have had two century of history before the famous Bhoja of Dhara. Malaiya (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paramaras, Rashtrakutas and Harsora copperplate[edit]

Both Harsora copperplates acknowledge that Vapparaja was not just a feudatory of (Rashtrakuta) Akalavarsha but also "tasmin kule jatah" born in his clan. Each of the copperplates was inscribed by two different persons, from beginning to end.

A visual inspection of the two plates clearly demonstrates that theory that copperplates were partially carved at Manykheta, looted and later reused by Siyaka is untenable. The theory that the carvers left out some text by mistake is also untenable. The conclusion ought to be that Vapparaja was indeed from the family of Akalavarsha, and thus used the same titles as the Rashtrakutas. Malaiya (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section mis information[edit]

The religion column has been mis informed. Since I too belong to that sect i have the basic knowledge of What Shaivism is. Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism are there major sects in Hinduism. All these three belong to Hinduism. So if you mention Religion in the column please make sure to add Hinduism along with Shaivism. Else if you want to mention only Shaivism then make sure to change the column Religion to "Sect" or "tradition" RKparadox (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Hinduism along with it. So please don't indulge in edit war further. RKparadox (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2021[edit]

The Surana Rajputs are descended from Jagadev Paramara son Madhidev Paramara. Jagadeva Paramara was the son of Udayadita. There are many websites that show this like where I compiled all my info about my surname "SuranaHistory.info". It also says it on Jagadeva Paramara's Wiki. That is why where it says "Branched and claimed Descendants" can you write something like this.

The Surana Rajputs of Nagaur/Morkhana in Bikaner were descended from the Paramaras by Jagadeva Paramara's son Madhidev Paramara. Samyak Surana (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022[edit]

The Paramara Dynasty (IAST: Paramāra) is a Rajput royal house which has been ruled by Royal Family of Malwa which was established by the 9th century due to which west-central India is considered Malwa by 14th centuries.[3]

The Paramara Dynasty (IAST: Paramāra) is a Rajput royal house of rulers that controlled of Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta by the 9th century in which ruler Siyaka who founded Gujarat by the 10th century, by 972 CE founded Manyakheta, by 972-990s CE founded Munja from which Madhya Pradesh was found which is considered as territory of the Paramara dynasty, by 9th century found Dhara which was considered the capital, Paramara dynasty descendent Raja Bhoja connected kingdom of Chittor to kingdom of Konkan in the south, connected kingdom of Sabarmati River in the west to Vidisha in the east.

The Paramara Dynasty (IAST: Paramāra) is a Rajput royal house of rulers that never declined fro power even through struggles with the Chaulukyas of Gujarat from 940 CE to 1244 CE, even through struggles with the Chalukyas of Kalyani from 973 to 1189, even through struggles with the Kalachuris of Tripuri from 7th century to 13th century, even through struggles with the Chandelas of Jejakabhukti from 9th century CE–13th century, even through struggles of the neighbouring kingdoms.

The Paramara Dynasty (IAST: Paramāra) is a Rajput royal house of rulers that founded the capital of Mandapa-Durga known as Mandu in the 11th century which was founded after Dhara which was never conquered. After which Mahalakadeva remained the ruler of Malwa even after Alauddin Khalji was defeated and killed in 1305 CE by Mahalakadeva after which Paramara rulers continued as rulers of Malwa state of Hindus.

Paramara rulers encouraged politically prosperity in the Malwa state of Hindus. Paramara rulers encouraged cultural prestige in the Malwa state of Hindus. Paramara rulers are known for patronage to Sanskrit poetic scholars. Paramara rulers have been renowned Sanskrit scholars among which Raja Bhoja was known among all scholars of Malwa state of Hindus. Paramara rulers have been Shaivites through out times to which commissioned several Shiva temples in states of Hindus. Paramara rulers have always patronized Jain scholars. ARCHAEOLOGYINDIADPD (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear what changes you are requesting. — Manticore 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's supposed to be a rewrite of the lead, from a HIGHLY POV / caste-pushing view. It's about as close to reality as pixie dust and unicorns. Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput in opening line[edit]

@Frank Springer, Discuss your additions on the talk page and get consensus. I am objecting to this additions that you recently added. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing controversial about the line, Parmaras are called rajput dynasty by every historians, and I don't think any historians ever deny this fact. Anachronism and origin or consolidation of rajput identity is a separate topic altogether. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:@Venkat TL: What is your objection then ?? My content was backed by three scholary sources from David Ludden, Nandini Chatterjeee & Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya three of the most renowned scholars of that age. Since you are only editor who opposed it since 17 March 2022, explain your concerns here. Frank Springer (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content that you surreptitiously removed clearly explains the dispute. The lead is not the place to add controversial stuff. The origins should be discussed in the origins section. The refs you added have been moved to origins section. If you want to add something in the lead, you should first read MOS:LEAD and then make a case for it and get WP:CONSENSUS before doing it. Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Venkat TL: I removed that dubious line by mistake. In any case, any student of Indian history of that phase will not deny the fact that this dynasty was classified as among Rajput clans. Infact this is nothing controversial at all plus removing refernces to that section doesn't add any nuance infact they are polar opposite to the line in front of which they are added. I have more sources from modern scholars who explicitly call them Rajput clan and will add it in few minutes to gather them in one reply for easy accesibilty. Frank Springer (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Springer whatever sources or content you want to add, first post them on the talk page and get WP:CONSENSUS before it is added into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Venkat TL: So here is a collaboration of four more scholarly works which clearly state this dynasty which I edited along with three sources I added.

First one is from Peter Robb (2011) who explained that

From around 1000 ce notable among these regional powers were various Rajput dynasties in the west and north

[1]

PETER ROBB is research Professor in the History of India at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, UK. He has published widely on the history of India and South Asia.

  • Second one if from Hermann Kulke who mentioned that

    When Gurjara Pratiharas power declined after sacking of Kannauj in early tenth many Rajput princes declared their independence and founded their own kingdoms, some of which grew to importance in next two centuries. The better known among these dynasties were Chaulukyas or Solankis of Gujarat and Kathiawar. The Chahamanas or Chauhans of eastern Rajasthan and Jodhpur, Parmaras of Malwa

    [2]
    • Hermann Kulke is a a German historian and Indologist, who was professor of South and Southeast Asian history at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988–2003).
  • Third one is from Salma Ahmed Farooqui (2011), associate professor of history at Maulana Azad National Urdu University who states that

    The origin of Rajputs who dominated the history of northern India between from eigth to twelvth century ce has always been debated. Among the more well known of their kingdoms were Pratiharas of Kannauj, Gahadavalas of Kannauj, Chauhans of Delhi and Ajmer, Parmaras of Malwa, The Chandelas of Bundelkhand, The Solankis of Gujarat etc

    [3]
  • Next on is from Romila Thapar [4]

Next, four editors edited this page after me Special:MobileDiff/1078085858, Special:MobileDiff/1079562294, Special:MobileDiff/1080235117 & none of them opposed my edit apart from you. Infact one of Pending change reviewers corrected some of my typo's. So, now it's upto you to provide sources which unambiguously claimed that Parmara dynasty was not classified among Rajputs. I added seven sources now, desparately waiting for your reply. Frank Springer (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors might have not seen your additions. You only need one objection to understand that your addition is controversial and that you will need WP:CONSENSUS. I will review the sources and comment later on. Venkat TL (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::@Venkat TL: No problem, I was open to debate at talk page of Rajput resistance and even here. Yes, that's your take on it, but I added sources with quotes from them (some of them aren't accesible). Now, bring reliable sources which clearly states that they were not classified as Rajputs. You can take your time but reply with sources that contradict these not with vague claims. Frank Springer (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peter Robb (2011-06-21). A History of India. Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-230-34549-2. From around 1000 ce notable among these regional powers were various Rajput dynasties in the west and north. The likes of Chauhans, Panwars in Dhar (Parmaras), Chandelas were among the dynasties of this period.
  2. ^ Hermann Kulke (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-415-32919-4. When Gurjara Pratiharas power declined after sacking of Kannauj in early tenth many Rajput princes declared their independence and founded their own kingdoms, some of which grew to importance in next two centuries. The better known among these dynasties were Chaulukyas or Solankis of Gujarat and Kathiawar. The Chahamanas or Chauhans of eastern Rajasthan and Jodhpur, Parmaras of Malwa
  3. ^ Salma Ahmed Farooqui (2011). A Comprehensive History of Medieval India: From Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Pearson Education India. ISBN 978-81-317-3202-1. The origin of Rajputs who dominated the history of northern India between from eigth to twelvth century ce has always been debated. Among the more well known of their kingdoms were Pratiharas of Kannauj, Gahadavalas of Kannauj, Chauhans of Delhi and Ajmer, Parmaras of Malwa, The Chandelas of Bundelkhand, The Solankis of Gujarat etc
  4. ^ Romila Thapar (2015-06-01). The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 978-93-5214-118-0. The four clans dominated early Rajput activities like Chauhans or Chahamanas, Parmaras, Chaulukyas or Solankis. The kingdom which they founded arose from ruins of ancient Pratihara kingdom

Overciting[edit]

Please see WP:Overciting before restoring a bunch of refs which I have removed. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024[edit]

The Paramara Dynasty was a Hindu Dynasty which ruled Malwa from 9th century to early 14th century. At its zenith, they ruled a vast territory extended from Chittor in the north to Deccan in the south. They belonged to the Parmara clan of the Rajputs.[1] 

!-- !-- The introduction of the Dynasty is wrong and can lead to controversy. --> Iamlionofthejungle (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    • Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (2006). Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues. Anthem. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-84331-132-4. The period between the seventh and the twelfth century witnessed gradual rise of a number of new royal-lineages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, which came to constitute a social-political category known as 'Rajput'. Some of the major lineages were the Pratiharas of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and adjacent areas, the Guhilas and Chahamanas of Rajasthan, the Caulukyas or Solankis of Gujarat and Rajasthan and the Paramaras of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paramara_dynasty&oldid=1217874371"